Optimizing chair time in infusion centers using intravenous cetirizine premedication for the prevention of hypersensitivity infusion reactions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13508-e13508
Author(s):  
Julio Antonio Peguero ◽  
Ahmed Ayad ◽  
Stacia Young-Wesenberg ◽  
Teresa Yang ◽  
Janine North ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Urticaria ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Infusion Reactions ◽  
Anti Cd20

e13508 Background: Oncology infusion centers are increasingly focused on improving operational efficiencies and patient satisfaction, while maintaining quality care. One key component is optimizing chair time, which has been especially important for patient safety during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce risk of transmission. Many infusions require antihistamine premedication to reduce the risk of hypersensitivity infusion reactions (IRs). The two IV options are IV diphenhydramine and IV cetirizine, which have a quicker onset than oral options and can be administered IV push. In treating acute urticaria, IV cetirizine was shown to be comparable to IV diphenhydramine, with fewer side effects, and it may be effective for preventing IRs with improved chair time. Methods: A randomized, double-blind phase 2 study evaluating premedication with single dose IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 34 patients receiving paclitaxel, rituximab, its biosimilar or obinutuzumab (first cycle, retreatment after 6 months or with persistent IRs). The primary objective was the incidence of IRs after premedication. Secondary endpoints included sedation due to antihistamines and time to readiness for discharge. Sedation was reported by patients on a scale of 0-4 (0 = none to 4 = extremely severe). No formal statistical analyses were planned given the exploratory nature of the study. Results: Adults primarily with cancer (n = 31 [91%]) were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 25 to November 23, 2020. The median age was 65 and 67 years in the IV cetirizine and diphenhydramine groups, respectively. The number of patients with IRs was 2/17 (11.8%) with IV cetirizine versus 3/17 (17.6%) with IV diphenhydramine. The mean sedation score in the IV cetirizine group compared to the IV diphenhydramine group was lower at all time points, including at discharge (0.1 vs 0.4, respectively). Mean time to discharge was 24 minutes less with IV cetirizine (4.3 hours [1.5]) versus IV diphenhydramine (4.7 hours [1.2]). This difference was greater (30 minutes less) in those ≥65 years of age (4.4 [1.3] vs 4.9 [1.0] hours). Regardless of whether patients received paclitaxel (n = 9) or an anti-CD20 (n = 25), patients had less chair time when premedicated with IV cetirizine. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with IV cetirizine (2 events) than with IV diphenhydramine (4 events). Conclusions: This was the first randomized, controlled trial evaluating IV antihistamine premedication for IRs and chair time. It was shown that IV cetirizine can prevent IRs, with less sedation, fewer related AEs and reduced chair time compared to IV diphenhydramine. This improves infusion center operations and patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT04189588.

Epoetin delta in the management of anaemia in cancer patients

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19555-19555
Author(s):  
K. Zajda ◽  
M. Krzakowski
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Gene Activation ◽  
Human Cell Line ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Target Sample Size ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Transfusion Requirements

19555 Background: Cancer is often associated with anaemia. Epoetin delta (Shire plc) differs from recombinant erythropoietins as it is produced in a human cell line using gene-activation technology. We report data from a controlled trial of epoetin delta (ED) and an extension study. Methods: Cancer patients with anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] = 10.5 g/dL) were randomized to 12-weeks’ treatment with ED (150 or 300 IU/kg) or placebo (double blind). Treatment was given subcutaneously, three-times weekly. Patients were included if they were receiving chemotherapy and had at least two cycles remaining when randomized. Primary objective was to demonstrate a difference between ED and placebo in Δ Hb from baseline and the number of patients requiring blood transfusions. Target sample size was 100 patients per arm (99% power for a 1.6 g/dL difference in Δ Hb and a 29% difference in the percentage of patients requiring transfusions). Patients completing the study entered an open-label, 12-week extension in which all initially received ED 150 IU/kg. Dose could be increased to 300 IU/kg if Hb levels were < 12 g/dL after 4 weeks. Results: In total, 313 patients were randomized (100, 103 and 99 to ED 150 and 300 IU/kg, and placebo, respectively). Mean change ± SD in Hb from baseline was 2.47 ± 2.39, 2.46 ± 2.56 and 0.57 ± 1.7 in the ED 150 and 300 IU/kg, and placebo groups respectively (P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). There was no difference in the proportion of patients requiring transfusions (26.0, 21.9 and 26.9%, respectively). In the second study, Hb levels were maintained in those previously on ED and increased in those previously on placebo (2.55 g/dL). In those previously on ED, transfusion requirements were lower. ED was well tolerated. Conclusions: Epoetin delta was effective in increasing Hb levels in patients with anaemia related to cancer and longer treatment was associated with fewer transfusions. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Early combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate in JIA patients shortens the time to reach an inactive disease state and remission: results of a double-blind placebo-controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Alexeeva ◽  
Gerd Horneff ◽  
Tatyana Dvoryakovskaya ◽  
Rina Denisova ◽  
Irina Nikishina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Disease State ◽  
Inactive Disease ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Early Combination Therapy

Abstract Background Remission is the primary objective of treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). It is still debatable whether early intensive treatment is superior in terms of earlier achievement of remission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of early etanercept+methotrexate (ETA+MTX) combination therapy versus step-up MTX monotherapy with ETA added in refractory disease. Methods A multi-centre, double-blind, randomized study in active polyarticular JIA patients treated with either ETA+MTX (n = 35) or placebo+MTX (n = 33) for up to 24 weeks, followed by a 24-week open-label phase. The efficacy endpoints included pedACR30 criteria improvement at week 12, inactive disease at week 24, and remission at week 48. Patients who failed to achieve the endpoints at week 12 or at week 24 escaped to open-label ETA+MTX. Safety was assessed at each visit. Results By intention-to-treat analysis, more patients in the ETA+MTX group reached the pedACR30 response at week 12 (33 (94.3%)) than in the placebo+MTX group (20 (60.6%); p = 0.001). At week 24, comparable percentages of patients reached inactive disease (11 (31.4%) vs 11 (33.3%)). At week 48, 11 (31.4%) and eight (24.2%) patients achieved remission. The median (+/−IQR) times to achieve an inactive disease state in the ETA+MTX and placebo+MTX groups were 24 (14–32) and 32 (24–40) weeks, respectively. Forty-four (74/100 patient-years) adverse events (AEs) were reported, leading to treatment discontinuation in 6 patients. Conclusions Early combination therapy with ETA+MTX proved to be highly effective compared to the standard step-up regimen. Compared to those treated with the standard regimen, more patients treated with a combination of ETA+MTX reached the pedACR30 response and achieved inactive disease and remission more rapidly.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of butylphthalide for patients who had acute ischaemic stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular treatment (BAST trial): study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045559
Author(s):  
Xuelei Zhang ◽  
Anxin Wang ◽  
Jing Yu Zhang ◽  
Baixue Jia ◽  
Xiaochuan Huo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Ischaemic Injury ◽  
Study Results

IntroductionAs a neuroprotective medication, butylphthalide (NBP) may help protect against cerebral ischaemic injury. However, evidence on whether NBP influences the outcomes of patients who had acute ischaemic stroke who are receiving revascularisation treatment is limited. This study aims to evaluate whether additional NBP therapy can improve the functional outcome of patients who receive intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and/or endovascular treatment (EVT).Methods and analysisThe study will be a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-centre, parallel group trial. The sample size is estimated at 1200 patients. Eligible patients will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive either NBP or placebo daily for 90 days, which will include 14 days of injections and 76 days of capsules. The first use of NBP/placebo will be started within 6 hours of onset of ischaemic stroke. The primary outcome is the functional outcome as assessed by the 90-day modified Rankin Scale, adjusted for baseline scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. The primary safety outcome is the percentage of serious adverse events during the 90 days of treatment. This trial will determine whether NBP medication benefits patients who had acute ischaemic stroke who receive intravenous thrombolysis or EVT.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was written according to the general ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University with approval number KY 2018-003-02. Ethics committees of all participating sites have approved the study . Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and shared in scientific presentations.Trial registration numberNCT03539445.

scholarly journals Randomized, controlled trial of lasmiditan over four migraine attacks: Findings from the CENTURION study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Messoud Ashina ◽  
Uwe Reuter ◽  
Timothy Smith ◽  
Judith Krikke-Workel ◽  
Suzanne R Klise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Common Teaes

Background We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups – lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity. Results Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg ( p < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity. Conclusions These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks. Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810

Safety of phosphatidylserine containing omega3 fatty acids in ADHD children: A double-blind placebo-controlled trial followed by an open-label extension

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 386-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Manor ◽  
A. Magen ◽  
D. Keidar ◽  
S. Rosen ◽  
H. Tasker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acids ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blood Biochemical ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Open Label Extension ◽  
Safety Parameters

AbstractObjective:To evaluate the safety of phosphatidylserine (PS) enriched with omega3 fatty acids, mainly eicosapentaenoic (PS-Omega3) in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).Methods:Two hundred children diagnosed with ADHD were randomised to receive either PS-Omega3 (300 mg PS-Omega3/day) or placebo for 15 weeks. One hundred and fifty children continued into an open-label extension for an additional 15 weeks in which they all consumed PS-Omega3 (150 mg PS-Omega3/day). Standard blood biochemical and haematological safety parameters, blood pressure, heart rate, weight and height were evaluated. Adverse events and the Side Effect Rating Scale were also assessed.Results:One hundred and sixty-two participants completed the double-blind phase. No significant differences were noted between the two study groups in any of the safety parameters evaluated. One hundred and forty participants completed the open-label phase. At the end of this phase, no significant changes from baseline were observed in any of the studied parameters among participants who consumed PS-Omega3 for 30 weeks.Conclusions:Study results demonstrate that consumption of PS-Omega3 by children with ADHD, as indicated in a 30-week evaluation period, is safe and well tolerated, without any negative effect on body weight or growth.

scholarly journals Feasibility randomised multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy controlled trial of anakinra, an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist versus intramuscular methylprednisolone for acute gout attacks in patients with chronic kidney disease (ASGARD): protocol study

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gowrie Balasubramaniam ◽  
Trisha Parker ◽  
David Turner ◽  
Mike Parker ◽  
Jonathan Scales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Interleukin 1 ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
General Information ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Acute Gout ◽  
Double Blind

IntroductionAcute gout occurs in people with chronic kidney disease, who are commonly older people with comorbidities such as hypertension, heart disease and diabetes. Potentially harmful treatments are administered to these vulnerable patients due to a lack of clear evidence. Newly available treatment that targets a key inflammatory pathway in acute gout attacks provides an opportunity to undertake the first-ever trial specifically looking treating people with kidney disease. This paper describes the protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing anakinra, a novel interleukin-1 antagonist versus steroids in people with chronic kidney disease (ASGARD).Methods and analysisASGARD is a two-parallel group double-blind, double-dummy multicentre RCT comparing anakinra 100 mg, an interleukin-1 antagonist, subcutaneous for 5 days against intramuscular methylprednisolone 120 mg. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of the trial design and procedures for a definitive RCT. The specific aims are: (1) test recruitment and retention rates and willingness to be randomised; (2) test eligibility criteria; (3) collect and analyse outcome data to inform sample and power calculations for a trial of efficacy; (4) collect economic data to inform a future economic evaluation estimating costs of treatment and (5) assess capacity of the project to scale up to a national multicentre trial. We will also gather qualitative insights from participants. It aims to recruit 32 patients with a 1:1 randomisation. Information from this feasibility study will help design a definitive trial and provide general information in designing acute gout studies.Ethics and disseminationThe London-Central Ethics Committee approved the protocol. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberEudraCT No. 2015-001787-19, NCT/Clinicalstrials.gov No.NCT02578394, pre-results, WHO Universal Trials Reference No. U1111-1175-1977. NIHR Grant PB-PG-0614–34090.

scholarly journals Corrigendum: Nutritional Evaluation and Optimisation in Neonates (NEON) trial of amino acid regimen and intravenous lipid composition in preterm parenteral nutrition: a randomised double-blind controlled trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
Sabita Uthaya ◽  
Xinxue Liu ◽  
Daphne Babalis ◽  
Caroline Dore ◽  
Jane Warwick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Correct Treatment ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Made In

Abstract During the uploading of data for submission to the EudraCT results database, a discrepancy was identified. It was noted that the number of deaths per group was not consistent with the number in the final report and trial publication. This discrepancy was found to relate to two randomisation numbers. During the trial, the randomisation database had been held separately from the trial database, with manual transcription of randomisation numbers from the randomisation database to the trial database. Two randomisation numbers had been entered incorrectly into the trial database and, although this was documented at the time, the correction had not been made in the analysis data set. The two infants in question received the correct treatment in accordance with their allocation, but were analysed according to the wrong treatment group. Following the identification of this error, all analyses were repeated. It was confirmed that this error had a negligible impact on the study results. Furthermore, the two infants in question had not been included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses, as one had died and the other had withdrawn prior to the primary end-point assessment, so the key study outcomes remain unchanged. The only changes to the results are in the number of serious adverse events and minor changes to the data in demographics tables mostly affecting decimal points and the CONSORT diagram. Our interpretation of the study results remains unchanged.

The Efficacy of Nebulized Budesonide in Dexamethasone-treated Outpatients With Croup

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 97 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-466
Author(s):  
Terry P. Klassen ◽  
Lise K. Watters ◽  
Mark E. Feldman ◽  
Teresa Sutcliffe ◽  
Peter C. Rowe
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Airway Disease ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Lower Airway ◽  
Inspiratory Stridor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Oral Dexamethasone ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Pediatric Outpatients

Objective. To determine the added clinical benefit of nebulized budesonide in children with mild to moderate croup treated with 0.6 mg/kg oral dexamethasone. Design. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting. Emergency department of a tertiary-care pediatric hospital with 47 000 visits per year. Participants. Children 3 months to 5 years of age with a syndrome consisting of hoarseness, inspiratory stridor, and barking cough and a croup score of 3 or greater after at least 15 minutes of mist therapy. Patients were excluded from the study if they had diagnoses of epiglottitis, chronic upper or lower airway disease (not including asthma), or severe croup or had received corticosteroids within the preceding 2 weeks. Intervention. All patients received 0.6 mg/kg oral dexamethasone and were randomly assigned to receive 4 mL (2 mg) of budesonide solution (n = 25) or 4 mL of 0.9% saline solution (n = 25) by updraft nebulizer with a continuous flow of oxygen at 5 to 6 L/min. Main Outcome Measures. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients in each group who had clinically important changes (two points) in the croup score during the 4 hours after treatment. Results. Eighty-four percent (n = 21) of the patients who received budesonide had clinically important responses, compared with 56% (n = 14) in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated with nebulized budesonide for one patient to have a clinically important response is four patients. Conclusions. Despite receiving simultaneous oral dexamethasone, pediatric outpatients with mild to moderate croup have added, clinically important improvement in respiratory symptoms after treatment with budesonide.

scholarly journals Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2424
Author(s):  
Jang Han Jung ◽  
Bomi Hyun ◽  
Jin Lee ◽  
Dong Hee Koh ◽  
Jung Hee Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Cirrhosis ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Number Connection Test ◽  
Severe Degree

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document